JOHN CARTER

Our nation recently celebrated Memorial Day, a day on which we recognize the service of so many brave American men and women. As we honor our veterans and current service members, it’s important that we maintain the promises the government made them in exchange for their service. Just as they have given life and limb in defense of our nation, so the government must honor our commitment to provide health care to those injured in their service.

Recent events have called into question the dedication that the Department of Veterans Affairs has to providing treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD is a serious psychiatric injury which is often difficult to diagnose. A soldier may develop PTSD in response to the traumatic events he or she often faces in a combat zone. While there are no clear physical symptoms, those affected have persistent frightening thoughts and memories of their ordeal and may even make themselves emotionally detached from their loved ones. While these wounds don’t leave physical scars on our soldiers, airmen, and marines; they are just as devastating.

One of my assignments as your Congressman is to help craft the legislation that provides funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2007 alone the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee provided an increase of over $11.8 billion to the veterans’ healthcare system. My colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, and I also took specific action to address the increasing cases of PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. We required that at least $2.9 billion be spent explicitly on mental health care. We also found it necessary to build a Level 1 Polytrauma Center in San Antonio, supply the necessary funds to provide Polytrauma support clinic teams and additional Polytrauma points of contact, and require that existing Level 1 Polytrauma centers and Mental Health Centers of Excellence be fully staffed and operational in 2008.

My commitment to our soldiers and veterans is strong. I am proud to have worked with both Democrats and Republicans to have supported these and other important issues for our service men and women, both past and present. It is important that we continue to honor our commitment to them and not hamper their recovery efforts in an effort to save a penny here or there. As I begin to work with other members of the Appropriations Committee on the bills to fund your government for the next year, I will continue to fight to make sure that our veterans receive the care they deserve.

In Texas we don’t have to look far to find thousands of the soldiers who contribute to our military’s honor and strength. The 31st District is honored to be the home of Fort Hood, the largest military installation in the world, where roughly 50,000 soldiers are stationed. Many of these soldiers have the comfort of their families close by. These military families make Fort Hood and the surrounding areas their home, contributing to the local economies and communities. As Members of Congress, we must recognize the importance that family plays in maintaining morale and retention in our military and assist them whenever we can.

We ask our soldiers to move numerous times throughout their time in the military. In doing so, we are also asking their spouses to move as well, leaving behind homes and businesses. The Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA) allows our military men and women the ability to claim a home of residency and keep that home regardless of where military orders may send them. This state of domicile can be the state where the member lived prior to joining the military or the state where the soldier intends to retire after separating from the military. This not only allows a small level of tax relief, but also makes the move from station to station easier, as common headaches from interstate moves like updating drivers’ licenses and vehicle registration are no longer necessary.

Unfortunately, military spouses are not granted this same consideration though they still move around the country and interrupt their lives because of military orders. In addition to the stress of looking for a job every few years, this inequality means that military spouses potentially pay up to $5,000 more annually in state income taxes than if they had not committed to support their soldier in this way. Spouses are also much less likely to have their names on deeds and titles of family property because of the implications of moving to another state, leaving many feeling like second class citizens.

I introduced the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act that would allow a military spouse who moves out of state because of the service member’s military orders to have the same option to claim one state of domicile regardless of where they are stationed. If a spouse chooses to take advantage of this, the soldier and the spouse must claim the same state.

Military families have shared in the sacrifices of service men and women and I strongly believe they should have the ability to share in the benefits. It is only fair to allow them to claim the same state of residency as their spouse. As the representative for the largest military base in the nation and so many military families, I look forward to seeing this bill passed into law.

This week marks the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Over the past five years, Iraq has become a nation that lives in freedom, not fear. The efforts of our men and women in uniform serving in Iraq have made the World and America safer from terrorists.

I have had the opportunity to visit Iraq four times since the beginning of the war. During my visits, I have had the great honor of visiting with our troops from Fort Hood, and I have been able to see first hand the progress we have made. We owe eternal gratitude to the brave men and women fighting for the safety of America and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Violence has declined throughout Iraq, particularly in Baghdad and al-Anbar Province. Total civilian deaths and coalition deaths have dropped by more than 70% since July of 2007, according to the House Armed Services Committee. Coalition forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists and key al-Qaeda leaders. This major reduction in violence has been made possible by the troop surge and the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda.

A neighborhood watch program called the “Sons of Iraq” movement is now 90,000 strong and has been the inspiration for other Iraqis to take up the fight. This neighborhood watch program has helped protect communities from terrorists and insurgents. During the past year, the Iraqi government has added its own surge of 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police officers, and the Iraqi government is now responsible for the security in nine of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The increase in Iraqi forces has also enabled them to become more capable of executing their own missions.

Political progress is also taking place in Iraq. The Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Presidency Council are working through key pieces of legislation that will balance the central government in Baghdad with the strong local governments. They are also working to pass election laws and legislation that would set the framework for foreign investment in Iraq’s energy sector.

While the surge has enabled us to reduce the amount of violence, the stakes in Iraq are still great. We are witnessing the first large scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden and his terror network. Defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq will show that we are capable of defending liberty and defeating terrorists.

In the past five years, we have learned that when we pull our forces out too fast terrorists and extremist step in and spread violence. General Petraeus has warned that too quick of a withdrawal could result in a surge in violence again. I believe that we must listen very carefully to our experts on the ground in Iraq and trust that their advice to Congress is in the best interest of America, our troops, and the people of Iraq.

I cannot talk about the success in Iraq without mentioning our troops. Brave American men and women have fought and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people and the War on Terror. Back home, many families are sacrificing while their loved one serves in Iraq. We should all remember our military families and be thankful for their contribution to our freedom. This has been a long struggle – frankly, longer than many of us realized. But we owe it to the Iraqi people, and to the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, to finish the job. Our military needs to leave Iraq in victory under the American flag, not in defeat under a white flag. I ask that the residents of the 31st District continue to show support for these brave souls by flying your flag, thanking a troop and their family, and letting them know that you stand behind them.

This week we remember the brave men and women who lost their lives in the devastating terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. We remember the courageous policemen and firemen who rose to the call of duty on that day, and we remember the families whose grief has resurfaced with the memories of their lost loved ones. The total number of United States citizens killed in that single day was 2,974, the vast majority of whom were civilians, not military. They were not attacked by a country’s army. In fact, as we all remember, the attack was just the opposite. America was “sucker punched” out of the blue by a group of radical terrorists whose goal is to bring their violent way of life to our free country.

This great tragedy united our country in its aftermath, but has left us drastically divided on its meaning. It is sad that during this week of remembrance, liberal political group MoveOn.org “sucker punched” our own military forces by launching a personal attack on General David Petraeus, a respected U.S. Army figure who has dedicated thirty years of his life to the service. On the day General Petraeus delivered his congressionally mandated report to Congress on the progress being made in Iraq, MoveOn.org placed a full page advertisement in the New York Times accusing him of treason. The ad alleged, without evidence, that Petraeus would not give an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq, but instead would be “cooking the books” giving a testimony pre-spun and pre-scripted by the White House. To push the dagger a little deeper, the title of the ad was a pun on Petraeus’s name: General Betray Us?

I wonder how a group of American people could be so vicious towards a respected and credible general. After all, this man is a four-star general, a Princeton Ph. D, a recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Metal, and not to mention he has led our troops in the fight to protect our freedom, the very freedom that allows members of MoveOn.org the ability to speak so freely. To hear personal, intentional attacks like this on our military during the anniversary week of September, 11, raises one disturbing question. Why are we pointing the gun at our own soldiers rather than at the terrorists who killed so many innocent Americans? Because this attack on Petraeus was so public and so deliberate, it cannot be ignored by either side of the aisle. It is shameful and disrespectful, and any member of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, should denounce something so outright distasteful.

Despite the attacks, General Petraeus held his head high when he walked into the hearing room to deliver his testimony, seemingly unscathed by the ad. He delivered an honest, straight-forward assessment of the realities in Iraq. He discussed the importance of building on our current progress in Iraq and avoiding the consequences that would be sure to follow a precipitous withdrawal of support forces from the region. Not a single member of Congress wants to see our soldiers stay in Iraq one day longer than is necessary, and General Petraeus made clear his intention to suggest a modest drawdown of troop levels in response to the success that has been achieved.

After returning from my fourth trip to Iraq, I can testify that what General Petraeus reported about the significant progress is true. I have witnessed first-hand the American soldiers working with the Iraqi forces to bring their country to a more secure state. Our soldiers on the ground believe strongly in what they are fighting for and we should allow them the opportunity to succeed and return home.

General Petraeus is a man of integrity and he is doing exactly what Congress has asked him to do by delivering an honest report. His testimony reminds us that progress in Iraq has not come without a price. That’s why it remains more important than ever that Congress cast aside political calculations and work together for the security of our nation. We need to adopt a bi-partisan policy that is worthy of our troops’ continued sacrifice and consistent with their single minded determination to succeed.

As a Member of Congress I can tell you there is no bigger issue we face as a nation than the Global War on Terror. This war affects every American. It demands sacrifices from the men and women in uniform who so bravely risk their lives to defend the freedoms we enjoy today, and it affects the families of our military who send their loved ones to fight the battle. It is to these individuals that we owe our eternal gratitude.

This past weekend I flew to Iraq to visit the soldiers from Fort Hood who are stationed on the ground. I went over there expecting to hear and see the same things you have seen on television- explosions, bloody battles and soldiers who have given up on their mission. I was prepared for the worse news possible.

What I witnessed was the exact opposite. We have young men and women fighting on the ground in Iraq who believe strongly in what they are fighting. We have generals who believe in the missions and report that, although things look dire on an American television set, things are changing to our favor in Iraq. In fact, in all my conversations with hundreds of soldiers, the one thing they all had in common was their view on the war they are fighting. They believe they are fighting a war that is being won, and what discouraged them most was the war going on in Congress about pulling them out before they have completed their mission.

I am not a military expert, and neither is anybody in the Congress. I must add that I have been to Iraq four times since I was elected to Congress, and this was the closest I have been to the fighting. It was hot, windy and dangerous, and although I was only in Iraq for a weekend, I got a taste of the harsh conditions our soldiers are dealing with; and still they are dedicated to their mission. We are talking about 130 degree heat with the strongest wind you can imagine, and still their spirits were high. I tell you, Central Texas has some amazing men and women over in Iraq.

During my trip we made an unexpected stop in Ramadi to walk through a central market. If you recall, about eight months ago, Ramadi was said to be the most active combat zone in the entire country, but now it is a place where people can go and shop. It is still dangerous, but nothing compared to what it was eight months ago. Things are progressing.

What is making a difference in Ramadi is the Sunni population is now working with the Iraqi government and our military to point out terrorists. I might remind you that the al Qaeda are Sunni. Because of the success of our men and women in uniform and the brutality of the terrorists, the Iraqi people are beginning to trust their government and the Americans.

I believe in our servicemen and women and the American spirit they’re bringing to Iraq. Ramadi is proof that folks in Iraq are seeking peace and prosperity. With a little encouragement, and the strength to enforce laws, the prospect for a bright future in Iraq is looming. Calvin Coolidge once said, “The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.” I want those soldiers in Iraq to know that I have not forgotten about them, and I will continue fighting and praying for the mission they believe in so strongly.

The U.S. government is funded through a series of annual spending bills that provide for such basics as our Armed Services, homeland security, and Medicare. Much of this funding is routine, only requiring slight adjustments from year to year. But certain unforeseeable circumstances, such as 9/11, the War on Terror, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita can require additional federal funding. This additional funding forms what is called a, “supplemental spending bill,” or sometimes, “emergency supplemental spending bill.”

Our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan regularly receive funding through these supplemental spending bills. As money is needed to supply armor, ammunition, or equipment and supplies, Congress authorizes the additional funding. By nature these bills are intended to fund the unexpected, yet immediate, needs as they arise.

Next week, the House of Representatives will be discussing an emergency war supplemental bill to provide for the basic needs of our servicemen and women serving in harm’s way. But sadly, the Democratic majority has opted to play politics with this very basic responsibility, by loading it with an additional $21 billion in pet programs and projects unrelated to our soldiers.

In doing this, liberals in Congress have made light of a very serious obligation – to fully fund those protecting our freedom. The reason the Democrat leadership is loading this bill with so much pork is because they have added provisions to set a timeline for defeat in Iraq. This dangerous attempt to micromanage the war has met much resistance from liberals and conservatives. In order to secure enough votes to pass the bill, the leadership is attempting to win votes with pork. Their antics jeopardize the timely need to pass such legislation by increasing the chances of a presidential veto.

The projects that Democrats inserted into the supplemental are completely irrelevant to the mission of our soldiers. For example, $60 million for California and Oregon’s salmon fishery disaster of 2006, $400 million for a timber revenue program in Oregon, $400 million in low-income home energy assistance for state grants, $448 million un-requested funds for state children’s health insurance programs, and a half a billion dollars for wildfire management and suppression.

Many of these are undoubtedly valuable projects, but they don’t belong in an emergency war supplemental. Instead, they appear to be nothing more than an attempt to buy votes at the expense of our soldiers in the War on Terror. The supplemental is meant to be an emergency troop funding vehicle, and there’s no excuse for $21 billion worth of pork in that supplemental.

There is plenty of time for Democrats and Republicans to debate and discuss these programs on their own merits without making a political statement in the war supplemental. The emergency war supplemental is the wrong time and the wrong place for picking political fights.

For the sake of fiscal discipline, and a commitment to our soldiers, we must pass this bill without it being held hostage by those who wish to micromanage the commanders in the field or load this bill with non-military pork. As this debate goes forward, I trust that Congress can set aside politics, do our duty for those protecting our freedoms, and cut the pork from this bill.

Due to technical restrictions, Congressman Carter is unfortunately not able to directly answer questions posed on this forum.

One of the biggest questions facing our nation today is the future of the War on Terror. With Iraq as the central front in this war, Congress cannot avoid answering this question candidly and with sound resolve. This week, Democrats introduced House Concurrent Resolution 63 which initiated a 3-day, politically motivated, debate on whether our servicemen and women in Iraq deserve continued support.

For several days now, I have listened to my liberal colleagues try to explain their “give up” posture as one of support and commitment for the efforts in Iraq. But actions do not always match words. On January 10, 2007, President Bush requested an increase of 20,000 additional combat troops be sent to Iraq. This request was recommended by the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group and is in accordance with the guidance he received from generals on the ground in Iraq. But instead of respecting his role as Commander-in-Chief or offering an alternative plan, Congress has spent 3 days debating a non-binding resolution as to whether we should give the President our verbal blessing or not.

Although this resolution does not carry the force of law, it serves as a symbolic milestone for anti-war liberals whose explicit desire is to end the war through de-funding our servicemen and women. A nonbinding resolution does nothing to stop the war; it is nothing more than a political stunt that weakens morale among the troops and gives aid and comfort to our enemies. In fact, in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on January 23, 2007, General David Petraeus, the new commanding officer in Iraq, agreed that a resolution of disapproval for the President’s new strategy would “give the enemy some encouragement.” Like General Petraeus, I believe this political statement will have a devastating impact on troop morale.

During the countless hours of debate, a few representatives stated that the insurgency in Iraq is not driven by terrorists. But I would argue that the Islamist terrorist threat is real and directly connected to defeating the insurgents in Iraq. The Democrat plan to abandon Iraq will not make this threat disappear. Terrorists themselves believe Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, has repeatedly said Iraq and Afghanistan are the “two most crucial fields” in the Islamists’ war.

America can not afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by withdrawing from a direct confrontation with radical Islamist terrorists. They will continue to intensify their attacks against America, just as they did following the 1983 Beirut bombings, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa in 1997, and the brazen attack against the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.

Yet sadly, many in Congress cannot understand the simple importance of winning in Iraq. Winning involves leaving Iraq strong enough to protect itself from threats domestic and abroad. It involves ensuring that critical infrastructure and democratic processes are in place that can withstand the political pressures it will face.

Liberals in Congress are determined to ride a wave of public frustration and anxiety in hopes of advancing their anti-war agenda. Should this happen, the consequences will be dire. The outcome in Iraq will impact our efforts in the Global War on Terror for decades. Should we retreat from Iraq, it would result in pervasive instability, embolden radical Islamist terrorists to expand to new areas in the region, and give terrorists a secure base from which to launch attacks against America.

As this debate continues, I urge the residents of the 31st District to consider the dire consequences of withdrawing from Iraq too early and the travesty of cutting funding for our servicemen and women in combat. Cutting funding for the men and women who put their lives in harm’s way is reprehensible and irresponsible. Each of us shares the same goal of bringing our soldiers home as soon as possible, but we must accomplish our objectives first. The long-term security and stability of Iraq, America, and the free world requires no less.